DOJ-OGR-00002828.jpg
725 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court order / legal opinion
File Size:
725 KB
Summary
This document is page 7 of a legal order filed on March 22, 2021, in the case of United States v. Schulte (Case 1:17-cr-00548). The text details the court's analysis of Schulte's 'fair cross-section challenge' regarding the exclusion of African American and Hispanic American jurors under the Jury Selection and Service Act (JSSA) and the Sixth Amendment. While the court acknowledges these demographics are 'distinctive groups,' it rules that Schulte failed to meet the second and third elements of the Duren test, resulting in the rejection of his challenge.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Schulte | Defendant |
Defendant making a fair cross-section claim regarding jury selection.
|
| Duren | Legal Precedent Case Name |
Referenced for the 'three-part test' regarding jury selection.
|
| LaChance | Legal Precedent Case Name |
Cited regarding JSSA violations.
|
| Allen | Legal Precedent Case Name |
Cited regarding JSSA violations.
|
| Rioux | Legal Precedent Case Name |
Cited regarding the definition of 'distinctive' groups in the Second Circuit.
|
| Barnes | Legal Precedent Case Name |
Cited legal case.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Second Circuit |
Judicial circuit that has recognized specific groups as 'distinctive'.
|
|
| S.D.N.Y. |
Southern District of New York, cited in United States v. Barnes.
|
|
| DOJ-OGR |
Department of Justice Office of Government Relations (indicated in Bates stamp).
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of New York
|
Relationships (1)
Schulte is the defendant challenging the jury selection process in this order.
Key Quotes (3)
"Mere technical violations of the JSSA, however, are not actionable."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002828.jpg
Quote #1
"Because Schulte’s fair cross-section claim arises under both the Sixth Amendment and the JSSA, he must meet the three-part test set forth under Duren."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002828.jpg
Quote #2
"The Court holds, however, that Schulte cannot establish the second and third elements of the Duren test. Accordingly, his fair cross-section challenge must be rejected."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002828.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,927 characters)
Case 1:17-cr-00548-PAC Document 359 Filed 03/22/21 Page 7 of 20
section challenges under both the Act and the sixth amendment, our discussion of the statutory
challenge also disposes of his constitutional claim.”).
challenge also disposes of his constitutional claim.”).
In addition to fair cross-section claims, a defendant may also assert other violations of the
JSSA if those violations constitute a “substantial failure to comply with its provisions.” Id. at
870 (cleaned up); Allen, 2021 WL 431458, at *4. “Mere technical violations” of the JSSA,
however, are not actionable. LaChance, 788 F.2d at 864 (cleaned up). “Whether a violation is
substantial or merely technical depends upon the nature and extent of its effects on the wheels
and venire from which a defendant’s grand jury was derived.” Id. (cleaned up).
JSSA if those violations constitute a “substantial failure to comply with its provisions.” Id. at
870 (cleaned up); Allen, 2021 WL 431458, at *4. “Mere technical violations” of the JSSA,
however, are not actionable. LaChance, 788 F.2d at 864 (cleaned up). “Whether a violation is
substantial or merely technical depends upon the nature and extent of its effects on the wheels
and venire from which a defendant’s grand jury was derived.” Id. (cleaned up).
ANALYSIS
I. Fair Cross-Section Challenge
Because Schulte’s fair cross-section claim arises under both the Sixth Amendment and
the JSSA, he must meet the three-part test set forth under Duren. See LaChance, 788 F.2d at
870.
the JSSA, he must meet the three-part test set forth under Duren. See LaChance, 788 F.2d at
870.
The parties do not dispute that the first element under Duren has been satisfied. That
element asks whether “the group alleged to be excluded is a distinctive group in the community.”
Duren, 439 U.S. at 364. Here, Schulte alleges that African American and Hispanic American
jurors were unlawfully excluded from the jury venire. (Schulte Br. at 7.) These groups have
been recognized as “distinctive” by the Second Circuit. Rioux, 97 F.3d at 654 (“Rioux has
satisfied the first prong of the Duren test: Blacks and Hispanics are unquestionably “distinctive”
groups for the purposes of a fair-cross-section analysis.”); United States v. Barnes, 520 F.
Supp.2d 510, 514 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Schulte has therefore satisfied the first element under
Duren. The Court holds, however, that Schulte cannot establish the second and third elements of
the Duren test. Accordingly, his fair cross-section challenge must be rejected.
element asks whether “the group alleged to be excluded is a distinctive group in the community.”
Duren, 439 U.S. at 364. Here, Schulte alleges that African American and Hispanic American
jurors were unlawfully excluded from the jury venire. (Schulte Br. at 7.) These groups have
been recognized as “distinctive” by the Second Circuit. Rioux, 97 F.3d at 654 (“Rioux has
satisfied the first prong of the Duren test: Blacks and Hispanics are unquestionably “distinctive”
groups for the purposes of a fair-cross-section analysis.”); United States v. Barnes, 520 F.
Supp.2d 510, 514 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Schulte has therefore satisfied the first element under
Duren. The Court holds, however, that Schulte cannot establish the second and third elements of
the Duren test. Accordingly, his fair cross-section challenge must be rejected.
7
DOJ-OGR-00002828
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document